J.C. Moore Online » Cap-and-trade

The 2010 Environmental Hall of Fame/Shame Winners

admin — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 21:23:38 +0000

This year the contest was carried out on three websites and the results were combined. Your votes have been tabulated to determine the person who has most affected the environment through word or deed.

The 2010 Environmental Hall of Fame winner is RealClimate.org. As Physicist Retired said in his nomination, “This consortium of climate scientists has developed a comprehensive collection of data and analysis open to the public, with materials and discussions at basic, intermediate, and advanced levels of understanding. It is one of the most effective tools we currently have to combat – with real facts – the ongoing claims made by deniers.” The site will receive the Most Noble Prize in Environmental Science, a heartfelt thank you, and a recommendation from the sites where this will be posted. Arnold Schwarzenegger and John Kerry were tied for second place, and should receive, as Dowser put it, “Thanks, for standing firm. May God bless you!”

The Environmental Hall of Shame recipients are the Koch Brothers. They could use the publicity as they have been secretly funding candidates who oppose environmental regulations through their Americans for Prosperity Organization. They also clandestinely fund a number of think tanks that produce white papers, written by scientists with compromised ethics, that dispute the scientific research on climate change. They will receive the “Ignoble Prize in Environmental Science” and in the spirit of Oz, we will petition the Wizard to give them a social conscience.

Second place goes to Jane Lubchenco. As one blogger put it, ” I nominate her as a key player in the cover up of the death and destruction of the Gulf of Mexico, and in the vilification of those Marine Scientists who have concluded that there is a huge amount of oil left in the Gulf.” Her nominators were certainly the most creative in proposing prizes, and their names have been omitted, just in case. The proposed awards included: “The golden Tar Ball award . Yes , a big trophy cup over flowing with tar balls.” ”A picture of ten moon’s hanging over the side of an oil stained shrimp boat , with a For Sale sign on the shrimp boat.” “The old oil from every thing you will change the oil in this coming year. Cars, boats, motorcycles, ATVs, snowmobiles whatever sits in your garage or drive way. Think of it as a new form of recycling. Mail it to her.” Finally, someone wished to combine Jane’s award with Tony Hayward’s: “An all expense paid yacht trip for the two across the Gulf at the height of the spill, with an eternal flame lighting the bow.”

Hall of Fame Nominations and Percentage of Votes :

RealClimate.org – For providing facts to counter the propaganda by climate change deniers. (45%)

Govenor Arnold Schwarzenegger – For helping defeat Proposition 23, an effort to gut California’s environmental laws and heavily funded by Texas oilmen. (27%)

Senator John Kerry – For his efforts to usher a Cap-and -Trade bill through the .S. Senate. (27%)

China – For making real efforts to develop alternate energy sources. (0%)

Hall of Shame Nominations and Percentage of Votes :

The Koch Brothers, owners of Koch Oil – For slowing progress on a sound energy policy by funding climate change deniers. (46%)

Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Head of NOAA – For her role in the Gulf oil spill, being too friendly toward the oil companies she was to regulate, and damage to the fishing industry. (38%)

Tony Hayward, ex-chairman of BP – For decisions leading up to the oil spill and for saying, “I want my life back.” (8%)

China – For surpassing the U.S as the number one country in pollution emissions. (8%)

Remember, check www.realclimate.org for the facts on climate science. And, keep in mind those who you wish to nominate for the 2011 Awards, which will be held next December.

It’s Not Cap-and-Tax and Reagan Made It Work

admin — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 02:08:51 +0000

Our current Congressional leaders, particularly those who would ignore science or derogatorily call Reagan’s system “cap-and -tax”, should look to Reagan as an example.

The U.S. has been unable to make much progress on environmental issues because of opposition by our Republican leaders. They have inflated the cost while ignoring the benefits, labeled environmental issues as “liberal” to discourage support by conservatives, spread false “science”, and biased voters against a cap-and-trade approach by labeling it cap-and-tax. My own Congressman, Frank Lucas, espouses the current Republican leaders’ views and calls it “cap-and-tax” in his town hall meetings and in his “Frankly Speaking” articles that he sends to small town newspapers in Oklahoma.

Many Republicans recently celebrated Ronald Reagan’s hundredth birthday as he is considered a unifying figure who skillfully blended principle, pragmatism, and service to the nation. He was a thoughtful, traditionalist conservative who was mindful of our stewardship obligation to future generations. He preserved many wilderness areas so they could not be damaged by economic development. The way he solved two pollution problems should set an example for Republican politicians today.

During the 1980s, scientific evidence mounted that the CFCs from spray cans and refrigerants were damaging the ozone layer. The layer filters out UV light which can cause skin cancers and environmental damage. Reagan ignored the political disputes, the ideological posturing, and the claims of economic disaster – and followed the advice of the scientists. He signed into effect the Montreal protocol, banning emissions of CFCs into the atmosphere. The economic catastrophes never came to pass and the ozone layer is recovering.

When Canada became alarmed that emissions from Northeastern power plants were drifting into Canada and acidifying their lakes, Reagan proposed a market solution to the problem. He devised a cap-and-trade system whereby polluters had to pay by buying credits while companies who reduced their pollution would receive credits. In spite of initial complaints, the system worked well and it cost far less than the power companies claimed it would – and none went out of business.

The scientific evidence has become clear and convincing that man’s release of CO2 is causing our climate to change, endangering the environment and the health of future generations. Yet, many of our Republican leaders are unwilling to accept the scientific evidence. The industries involved are saying it will be too costly, and some are claiming it will ruin our economy. The cap-and-trade system put forward to address the problem is stalled by misinformation and political controversies. Our current Congressional leaders, particularly those who would ignore science or derogatorily call Reagan’s system “cap-and -tax”, should look to Reagan as an example.

Should the EPA Limit Carbon Emissions?

admin — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 22:33:29 +0000

The U.S. Republican leaders are blocking climate legislation, leaving the EPA in the position of having to regulate carbon emissions. Many Republicans in Congress are unhappy with the EPA and are now claiming the EPA regulation of CO2 is a “power grab”.

Progress has been limited at the climate meetings in Copenhagen and in Cancun because the U.S. has not acted to restrict its carbon emissions. The U.S. is second to China in emissions but emits six times as much CO2 on a per capita basis. If the U.S. is not willing to reduce its emissions, why should other countries? The U.S. came very close to passing cap-an-trade but it failed when John McCain (R Az) backed out of the deal because of a challenge from a far right candidate in the last election. Reducing CO2 emissions has been cast as a liberal issue and many conservatives oppose it for that reason. The wins by Republicans in the last election almost insure that action on a responsible policy will be delayed by at least two years. That is a shame as many Republicans in the past have been strong supporters of the environmental issues.

The Republican leadership adopted opposition to environmental regulations as a campaign strategy. They sent out propaganda based on slick reports produced by conservative think tanks, rather than science, and they inflated the cost of environmental legislation by a factor of twenty – while not mentioning any of the benefits. The propaganda has been passed along to voters in town hall meeting and press releases. The EPA has used science as a basis for its decisions and has moved to limit CO2 emissions as an air pollutant under existing regulations in the Clean Air Act. This has infuriated many Republicans anfd they have challenged the EPA’s right to do, calling it a “power grab”.

My Congressman, Frank Lucas (R-OK), has spoken disparagingly of environmental regulations in his town hall meetings and in opinion pieces he has sent to the states major newspapers. He also writes a column that goes to many small town newspapers called “Frankly Speaking”. In his column, he has labelled the EPA’s actions to limit carbon emissions as “the EPA power grab” . That is hardly the case. The Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. EPA, found the Environmental Protection Agency could make a determination as to whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant. The EPA has found, based on the best scientific evidence, that CO2 is an endangerment to public health and has moved forward to regulate it.

If Congress had acted to develop a sound energy policy and to curb pollution, the EPA would not be forced to act in the matter. Regulations passed to limit carbon emissions would fall mainly on the coal industry and would favor a shift in the short term to petroleum and natural gas, both abundant in Oklahoma. Many from the petroleum and gas industries originally supported the cap-and -trade bill. However, all the OK Republican Congressmen sat out the process and let the Democrats from coal producing states load up the cap-and-trade bill with perks for coal producing states. Some of Oklahoma’s industrial leaders see that limiting carbon emissions could be favorable to the Oklahoma economy, but apparently, the elected representatives have not caught on yet.

And, it is not just about the CO2 or climate change. Along with the 30 billion tons of CO2 we put into the air annually are large amounts of mercury, lead, cadmium, arsenic, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, particulates, and radioactive isotopes of radon. Those end up in the air, the water, and the food chain. We are now finding mercury in fish and some places, even in Oklahoma, have limits on consumption. The oceans are now 20% more acidic and economically important fisheries are threatened. Whether we cap pollution, tax it, or strictly regulate it – something must be done and soon. The EPA regulation is a stop gap meaure and the U.S. Congress needs to stop the politics and pass a sound energy policy and meaningful environmental regulations.

Have Republicans Abandoned Conservative Values?

admin — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 23:38:46 +0000

The truth is that conservation and environmental stewardship are core conservative values.

It is hard to imagine how someone can be considered a Conservative if they don’t want to conserve the most important thing we have, the environment. They claim that they actually do, but not just now, not in that way, or not if it might cost a little. They also try to perpetuate the myth that conservation and environmental protection are liberal causes to justify their opposition. The truth is that conservation and environmental stewardship are core conservative values. (1)

It is even harder to imagine why the Republican Party would embrace the ideals and arguments of those non-conservationists. Our past Republican leaders have been strong advocates for environmental stewardship and they were responsible for enacting some of our most significant environmental legislation. (2)

Theodore Roosevelt believed that conservation was essential for keeping America strong and he was responsible for the permanent preservation of many of the unique natural resources of the United States. As he said,

“To waste, to destroy, our natural resources … will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity

Dwight Eisenhower was the first President to be so taken by the beauty of the arctic wilderness that he set aside 9 million acres as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to be protected for future generations. The Refuge remains as one of the most pristine wilderness areas in the United States.
Richard Nixon enacted many of the nation’s landmark environmental laws, which he saw as a means of unifying the nation. The EPA was created under Nixon’s leadership. According to Nixon:

“Clean air, clean water, open spaces — these should once again be the birthright of every American.” “…we must strike a balance so that the protection of our irreplaceable heritage becomes as important as its use. The price of economic growth need not and will not be deterioration in the quality of our lives and our surroundings.”

Barry Goldwater, dubbed “Mr. Conservative”, was a gifted photographer who produced beautiful pictures illustrating his beloved Arizona landscape. He put his finger on it when he said :

“While I am a great believer in the free enterprise system and all that it entails, I am an even stronger believer in the right of our people to live in a clean and pollution-free environment.”

Ronald Reagan signed 43 bills preserving a total of 10.6 million acres of wilderness. He was instrumental in U.S. ratification of the Montreal Protocol — which dramatically reduced depletion of the upper atmosphere’s protective ozone layer. He developed a cap-and–trade system that prevented our acid rain form blowing into Canada that cost much less than even the government estimated. As he communicated:

“If we’ve learned any lessons during the past few decades, perhaps the most important is that preservation of our environment is not a partisan challenge; it’s common sense. Our physical health, our social happiness, and our economic well-being will be sustained only by all of us working in partnership as thoughtful, effective stewards of our natural resources.” “I’m proud of having been one of the first to recognize that states and the federal government have a duty to protect our natural resources from the damaging effects of pollution that can accompany industrial development.”

John McCain during his 2008 presidential campaign, proposed a pragmatic national energy policy based upon good stewardship, good science, and reasonableness. He cosponsored cap-and-trade bills in the Senate in 2003, 2005, and 2007 and, as he said then,

“A cap-and-trade policy will send a signal that will be heard and welcomed all across the American economy. And the highest rewards will go to those who make the smartest, safest, most responsible choices.” And he was right. Having to pay the true cost of fossil fuel use is fair and would create incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Cap-and-trade was once considered to be the market solution to reducing carbon emissions. When popular, a number of key Republicans, such as Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went on record as endorsing the policy. Even Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), only two years ago, while supporting a version of a cap-and-trade bill in the Massachusetts legislature said:

“Reducing carbon dioxide emission in Massachusetts has long been a priority of mine. Passing this legislation is an important step … towards improving our environment.” (3)

Costs: But somewhere amid lobbying, big donations from power companies, and criticisms from so called conservatives who don’t really want to conserve much, the Republicans have backed off the cap-and-trade concept. They are now claiming it would cost each U.S. household $3,100 a year, a cost that has great sticker shock but is totally inaccurate. Dr. John Reilly, the MIT economist whose work was used to get that number, has criticized Republicans for distorting his work. (4) The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would average about $175 per household (5) and estimates are that associated savings would reduce the federal deficit by about $19 billion over the next decade. (6). A recent report by the National Academy of Sciences details the high economic costs of inadequate environmental legislation, such as reduced streamflow, rainfall, and crop yields (7). Estimates by the World’s top economists such as Britain’s Nicholas Stern (8) are that right now it would cost about 2% of the worlds GDP to mitigate environmental damage – but if delayed, that amount could rise to 20% or more of the world’s GDP by 2050 and put us at risk of an environmental catastrophe.

The misinformation, the damage to the environment, and waste that would be caused by not acting should alarm traditional Republicans. However, according to the Republicans for Environmental Protection, the GOP establishment has lost sight of its

“core conservative values, largely due to the influence of corporate lobbies and political leaders beholden to them for campaign support, and in opposition of the willingness of populist Democrats to embrace environmental protection. The result has been a polarizing battle that is not at all about the advance of conservative principles, but rather the advance of special interest political agendas.” (1)

(1) http://www.rep.org/index.html Republicans concerned about the environment may wish to check out this Republicans for Environmental Protection website.
(2) The quotes below came from http://www.conservamerica.org/quotes.html
(3) http://www.grist.org/article/2010-06-29-remember-when-republicans-liked-cap-and-trade/
(4) http://flavcountry.blogspot.com/2009/05/mit-economist-john-reilly-calls.html
(5) http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=300
(6) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38130006/ns/politics-capitol_hill/
(7) http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_15536630
(8) http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTINDONESIA/Resources/226271-1170911056314/3428109-1174614780539/SternReviewEng.pdf

The Republican Flip/Flop on Cap-and-Trade

admin — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 23:35:06 +0000

A Winning Flip: I can remember when Republicans liked Cap-and-trade. (1) For instance, John McCain cosponsored cap-and-trade bills in the Senate in 2003, 2005, and 2007 and, during his 2008 presidential campaign, proposed a pragmatic national energy policy based upon good stewardship, good science, and reasonableness. As he said then,

“A cap-and-trade policy will send a signal that will be heard and welcomed all across the American economy. And the highest rewards will go to those who make the smartest, safest, most responsible choices.”

And he was right. Having to pay the true cost of fossil fuel use is fair and would create incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Cap-and-trade was once considered to be the market solution to reducing carbon emissions. While popular, a number of key Republicans, such as Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) went on record as endorsing the policy. Even Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), only two years ago, while supporting a version of a cap-and-trade bill in the Massachusetts legislature said:

”Reducing carbon dioxide emission in Massachusetts has long been a priority of mine. Passing this legislation is an important step … towards improving our environment.”

But somewhere amid lobbying, big donations from power companies, and criticisms from so called conservatives who don’t really want to conserve much, the Republicans are now calling it cap-and-tax, essentially making fun of what was once their own idea.

The Sticker Shock Distortion Flop: In an effort to kill the bill, Republicans such as Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) are now claiming cap-and-trade would cost each U.S. households about $3,100 a year, a cost that has considerable sticker shock. However, that number was fabricated by doing some misleading additional math on a MIT study. Dr. John Reilly, the economist who authored the study, has criticized Republicans for distorting his work. In his words,

“It’s just wrong, It’s wrong in so many ways it’s hard to begin.” Not only is it wrong, but he said he told the House Republicans it was wrong when they asked him. “That’s just not how economists calculate the cost of a tax proposal”, Reilly said. “The tax might push the price of carbon-based fuels up a bit, but other results of a cap-and-trade program, such as increased conservation and more competition from other fuel sources, would put downward pressure on prices.” Moreover, he said, consumers would get some of the tax back from the government in some form. (2)

What Is the Uninflated Cost? The report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the entity responsible for providing Congress with nonpartisan analyses of economic and budget issues, estimates that the net annual economywide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion—or an average of about $175 per household. That figure includes the cost of restructuring the production and use of energy but it does not include the economic benefits and other benefits of the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and the associated slowing of climate change. Households in the lowest income bracket would see an average net benefit of about $40 in 2020 while those in the highest bracket would see a net cost of $245. Overall, net costs would average 0.2 percent of households’ after-tax income. (3) That doesn’t seem so bad, particularly as the CBO experts also estimate the climate and energy bill now stalled in the Senate would reduce the federal deficit by about $19 billion over the next decade. (4)

The High Cost of Doing Nothing: The cost of doing nothing may be unacceptably high in the long run because of resource scarcity, environmental damage, and the risk of reachng catastrophic tipping points. A recent report by the National Academy of Sciences details the high economic costs of reduced streamflow, rainfall, and crop yields (5). Estimates by the World’s top economists such as Britain’s Nicholas Stern (6) or the US’s Paul Krugman (7) are that right now it would cost about 2% of the worlds GDP to mitigate environmental damage – but if delayed, that amount could rise to 20% or more of the world’s GDP and put us at risk of an environmental catastrophe.

A Flip is Needed: What is it worth to have clean air, clean water, a more sustainable economy, and a less risky future? Can we risk doing nothing? We need a flip by our Republican leaders.

(1) http://www.grist.org/article/2010-06-29-remember-when-republicans-liked-cap-and-trade/

(2) http://flavcountry.blogspot.com/2009/05/mit-economist-john-reilly-calls.html

(3) http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=300

(4) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38130006/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

(5) http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_15536630

(6) http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTINDONESIA/Resources/226271-1170911056314/3428109-1174614780539/SternReviewEng.pdf

(7) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/magazine/11Economy-t.html

Lord Monckton: A British Sophist in the U.S. Congress

admin — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 02:07:25 +0000

Sophists: Originally, a sophist was someone wise or clever. With the rise of Democracy in Athens, sophists found it profitable to serve aspiring politicians. For a fee, they would argue on behalf of their patron or provide constructed arguments, or talking points, if the politician wished to appear learned. Expert Sophists claimed that, by skilled argument, they could convince an unwary citizen that black was white.

The Congressional Hearing: Recently, the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming met in Washington to decide what actions Congress should take to ensure our energy dependence and a sustainable environment.. (1) Some of the U.S.’s best scientists in atmospheric science, oceanography, environmental science, climatology, and ecology were called to testify before the committee. They testified that the Earth was indeed warming at an alarming rate, that the cause was primarily CO2 from man’s activity, and that undesirable changes were taking place in the Earth. Those observed changes were melting glaciers and ice caps, rising oceans, acidification of the oceans, invasions of undesirable species, and extinction of species. Their testimony was based on the best scientific evidence and was consistent with a statement on climate change adopted by every major scientific organization in the world. Things looked bad for the fossil fuel industry and those who received large donations from them. Clearly, some sophistry was needed.

Lord Monckton’s Credentials: The minority party in Congress called as their only witness Lord Monckton from England. His resume says he is a member of the House of Lords, that he was a science adviser to Margaret Thatcher, and that he has a peer reviewed paper on climate sensitivity in the well respected journal of the American Physical Society (APS). He is now the Chief Policy Adviser at the Science and Public Policy Institute. Lord Monckton is extremely qualified to deliver the message he brought. It was as misleading as his resume.

Oops: Strangely, Lord Monckton is not exactly a Lord. He claims to be but, to set the matter straight, the House of Lords has stated that

“Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords.”

And, Lord Monckton is not a scientist. He was more of an economic advisor to Margaret Thatcher. One of his main projects was a policy that contributed to the UK’s version of the recent housing bubble called by some the “Right to Buy” scheme. Lord Monckton has written no “peer reviewed article”. In response to his claim, the APS reaffirmed its position that climate change was occurring and pointed out that Monckton’s article was in a newsletter of the APS Forum that carries the disclaimer that

“This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.”

The APS further added a disclaimer to the top of Monckton’s article stating:

“Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions.”

Finally, Lord Monckton does actually advise the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI). It is an organization critical of government actions to prevent climate change that has recently morphed from the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, an Institute that had received over $1 million in funding from Exxon/Mobil. Some of the SPPI’s members are scientists with compromised objectivity and who are affiliated with other institutes funded by the American Petroleum Institute, Exxon/Mobil, and interests happy with the inaction in Washington.

The Testimony: Lord Monckton’s testimony was consistent with his credentials and a number of articles have been written debunking his claims. (3) A few inaccuracies are listed below to give the flavor of his testimony, which was clearly sophistry:

Levels of CO2 : For instance, he compares today’s CO2 levels with those from 750 million years ago when they were 300,000ppm and then argues

” Therefore, today’s CO2 concentration, though perhaps the highest in 20 million years, is by no means exceptional or damaging. ” … “It is also known that a doubling of today’s CO2 concentration, projected to occur later this century would increase the yield of some staple crops by up to 40% (lecture by Dr. Leighton Steward).”

The problem is that 750 million years ago was about 745 million years before man and modern plants appeared on the scene. The increase in CO2 concentration from 280 ppm to 380 ppm in the last century will have an unknown effect as the Earth’s plants and animals are adapted to levels less than 300 ppm. The higher CO2 levels and warming climate seem to favor invasive species, such as Kudzu. The Dr. Leighton Steward he refers to has never done any plant research. Dr. Leighton Steward is a director at EOG Resources, an oil and gas company (formerly known as Enron), and he is an honorary director of the American Petroleum Institute.

Ocean Acidification: According to Lord Monckton:

” It has been suggested that the oceans have “acidified” – or, more correctly, become less alkaline – by 0.1 acid-base units in recent decades. However, the fact of a movement towards neutrality in ocean chemistry, if such a movement has occurred, tells us nothing of the cause, which cannot be attributed to increases in CO2 concentration.”

However, the “0.1 acid-base units” he refers to is a pH scale, which is logarithmic. A decrease of 0.1 unit means the oceans are now over 20% more acidic than a century ago and the cause is most certainly CO2. Adding CO2 to soda makes it acidic and CO2 is certainly doing the same to the oceans. If the oceans get much more acidic, the coral, the fisheries, the shellfish, and the oxygen-producing plankton that give life to the oceans are threatened.

Temperature Consensus: Again, according to Lord Monckton

“There is no consensus on how much warming a given increase in CO2 will cause.”

Not exactly. Over 50 years ago, G.N. Plass calculated that doubling the CO2 concentration would bring a 3 to 4°C rise in the Earth’s temperature. (4) There have been a number of more accurate calculations since then but they all are in agreement with the range Plass calculated. Also, those calculations are in general agreement with the rising temperatures we are now observing.

“Just Adapt”: Lord Monckton finally gets to the point he was invited to make

” First, it would be orders of magnitude more cost-effective to adapt to any ‘global warming’ that might occur than to try to prevent it from occurring by trying to tax or regulate emissions of carbon dioxide in any way.”

There we have it. Rather than reasonably addressing climate change, Lord Monckton, and some politicians, wish for us to just “adapt to it”. Not really understanding science, Lord Monckton missed one small thing that might become important to England. As the Earth’s temperature increases, the large amounts of fresh water from the melting ice sheets may cause the Gulf Stream to shut down. Without the heat being brought across the Atlantic by the Gulf Stream, England would plunge to glacial temperatures with average winter temperatures of -25°C. I hope Lord Monckton is still around so he can tell his countrymen to “just adapt”.

(1)http://republicans.globalwarming.house.gov/Publications/hearings_markups_details.aspx?NewsID=2797
(2) Much of Lord Monckton’s background can be found on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley
(3) See, for instance: http://solveclimate.com/blog/20090327/congressional-hearings-amateurs-invited-confuse-climate-science or http://www.skepticalscience.com/Abraham-shows-Monckton-wrong-on-Arctic-sea-ice.html
(4) Plass, G.N. , “Carbon Dioxide and the Climate.” American Scientist 44: 302-16 (1956), or see the review article at: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#M_25_

Is EPA Regulation of CO2 a “Power Grab”?

admin — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:12:57 +0000

Congressman Frank Lucas (R-OK), in Frankly Speaking (3/10/2010), wants to rein in what he calls “the EPA power grab” to limit carbon emissions. That is hardly the case. The Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. EPA, ordered the environmental protection agency to make a determination as to whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant. The EPA has found, based on the best scientific evidence, that CO2 is an endangerment to public health and has moved forward as instructed.

If Congress had acted to develop a sound energy policy and to curb pollution, the EPA would not be forced to act in the matter. Regulation of carbon emissions would fall mainly on the coal industry and would favor a shift to petroleum and natural gas, both abundant in Oklahoma. However, all our Republican Congressmen sat out the process and let the Democrats from coal producing states load up the cap-and-trade bill with perks for coal producing states. Some of leaders see that limiting carbon emissions could be favorable to the Oklahoma economy, but apparently, our elected representatives have not caught on yet.

It is not just about the CO2 or climate change. Along with the 30 billion tons of CO2 we put into the air annually are large amounts of mercury, lead, cadmium, arsenic, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, particulates, and radioactive isotopes of radon. Those end up in the air, the water, and the food chain. We are now finding mercury in fish and some places have limits on consumption. The oceans are now 20% more acidic and economically important fisheries are threatened. Whether we cap pollution, tax it, or strictly regulate it, something must be done and soon.

Cap and Trade Requires Paying “True Cost”

admin — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:50:01 +0000

Many of our Legislators have expressed the idea that cap-and-trade is a tax that would be expensive and hurt the economy, particularly farming. That isn’t necessarily so. The “true cost” of a resource includes not only the price but also the cost of cleaning up the environment and disposing of the waste. Cap-and-trade is a way of seeing that those who use or profit from a resource pay the “true cost”. It would require those who increase pollution to buy credits to do so while those who find ways to decrease pollution would receive credits. That encourages entrepreneurship and provides incentives for using our resources wisely. Structured properly, cap-and-trade would actually be good for many sectors of the economy.

There have been many esimates of the cost of a cap-and-trade bill. There is one false claim that it would cost each U.S. household $3,100 a year. That number was arrived at by doing some creative math on a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study. However, John Reilly, the MIT economist who authored the study, says that number is wrong and is a misinterpretation of his work. More recent EPA estimates are that it would cost an average of about $140 per household anually. Then, there is also the claim that the cost of doing nothing would be much higher in the long run because of resource scarcity and environmental damage. Its hard to put a monetary value on that. Either way, paying the “true cost” of energy use is fair and would create incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Claims that cap-and-trade will not work are also in doubt as it has worked successfully in the past. It was used to reduce the U.S. sulfur dioxide emissions that produced acid rain in Canada - and it turned out to be much less expensive than either the industry or the government predicted. Also, after much criticism and a slow start, the European Union may meet or even exceed its Kyoto emission goals by 2012.¹In Oklahoma, Western Farmer’s Electric Co-op has voluntarily used cap-and-trade to offset its carbon emissions by encouraging farming practices that reduced emission. Under cap-and-trade, those practices would not only save money on energy usage but would earn credits that would add to farm profits.

(1) http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/europe-really-track-meet-its-kyoto-goals

Cap and Trade Requires Payment of "True Cost"

admin — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:54:08 +0000

Cap and trade reflects the “true cost” of using a resource as it includes the cost of cleaning up the environment and disposing of the waste. No one really knows what the cost of a cap-and-trade bill would be – or what the cost would be of doing nothing. Cap-and-trade has worked successfully in the past to reduce acid rain blowing into Canada from Northeast power plants. It cost much, much less than the power companies claimed it would and even less than the government estimated. Structured properly, cap-and-trade could actually be good for many sectors of the economy -including farmers.

For instance, Congressman Frank Lucas (R-OK) wrote in the Daily Oklahoman (6/21/09) that cap-and- trade is a tax and that it would be especially bad for farmers. That isn’t necessarily so. The true cost of using a resource includes the cost of cleaning up the environment and disposing of the waste. Cap and trade isn’t a tax. It is a way of seeing that those who profit from a resource pay the “true cost”. Cap-and-trade would require those who increase pollution to buy credits to do so while those who find ways to decrease pollution would receive credits. This would encourage entrepreneurship and provide the incentive for using our resources wisely.

No one really knows what the cost of a cap-and-trade bill would be – or what the cost would be of doing nothing. There is one claim that it would cost each U.S. household $3,100 a year. That number was arrived at by doing additional math on a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study. However, John Reilly, the MIT economist who authored the study, says that number is wrong and is a misinterpretation of his work. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the cost to be more like $180 per household with $19 billion in savings to be generated for the economy over the next ten years. There is also the claim that the cost of doing nothing will be higher in the long run because of resource scarcity and environmental damage. Its hard to put a cost on that. Either way, paying the true cost of hydrocarbon use is fair and would create incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Cap-and-trade has worked successfully in the past. It was used to reduce the U.S. sulfur dioxide emissions that produced acid rain in Canada – and, it turned out to be much less expensive than either the industry or the government predicted. And, after a slow start, the European Union may meet its pollution goals by 2012 by using a cap-and-trade system. In Oklahoma, Western Farmers Electric Co-op has voluntarily used cap-and-trade to offset its carbon emissions by encouraging farming practices that reduced emission. Structured properly, cap-and-trade could actually be good for farmers. Farming practices that reduce energy usage would not only save money but could earn farmers credits that would add to their profit.